Evidence of meeting #48 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Institute for Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada
I'm aware of the content of the report, Mr. Chairman.
What you find in the report is an example of where the choice of the four operating bases seems a constraint, and indeed it has an impact on the response time. If you look at the number of incidents, the change from Greenwood to Gander would have allowed for a much faster response time to quite a few incidents. That's the example given in the report.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to welcome the president and the director general.
My question is in fact about that. Why are the president and the director general before us when there is a technical committee of five leading experts and they are not here? Is there a particular reason why they are not here?
Do you want me to ask the question again?
I am going to repeat what I was saying because I don't think you were listening to me.
I was asking why the president and the director general are here when we were planning on receiving the members of a technical committee with six subject matter experts? I understand that the question is sort of political, but I'm asking it anyway.
3:50 p.m.
President, National Research Council Canada
The simple answer is that there are two elements to this particular discussion. One element is very technical, and we have an extremely knowledgeable DG who has been involved with the aerospace sector for many, many years, and is acknowledged around the world for his knowledge and expertise. We could line up all kinds of experts around the table, but I don't think that is particularly germane or would have as much value, in fairness.
As far as the other is concerned, I'm the head of the agency and I thought you might like to talk to me.
3:50 p.m.
President, National Research Council Canada
And you are, let me assure you.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
February 14th, 2011 / 3:50 p.m.
President, National Research Council Canada
Let me assure you that you are.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
When the committee prepares a report and sends it to the government, it expects an answer. Has the government responded to your report? Or did it receive it with a “Thank you very much, your job is done”?
3:50 p.m.
President, National Research Council Canada
As I think I noted in the opening remarks, the government received the report initially. There was interaction back and forth, and a final report was delivered to them. That would normally be the case in a circumstance like this. The technical evidence, if you like, or position is expressed and clarified in some instances through that process.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
In your report, you keep citing a 2005 report by Bourdon and Rempel. We tried to google it, but to no avail. It seems to be a government report. Could you submit the report to the committee? Or do we have to ask the department for it?
3:50 p.m.
President, National Research Council Canada
The report is public and has been publicly available for some time in both languages.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Oh no!
I have a question about the main operating bases. I think you can only give us limited information. For example, you won't be able to reveal the location of the various bases in Canada where the planes and helicopters are. I don't think that topic is in your mandate. Am I right?
3:55 p.m.
President, National Research Council Canada
It's not our job to tell DND how to operate. It's our job to provide advice relative to the statement of requirement and to point out where it may constrain the decisions that would be made. So we do not comment on where things should be.
We did comment based on the historical record of incidents and the effect these might have.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
After reading all the incident reports, we can conclude that most incidents happen in three locations, the west coast, the east coast and at Trenton. We know those places are where all the operations start. But we were told, on a number of occasions, that we could improve the way we use the equipment. However, I will not ask your opinion because any discussion on this topic is not in your mandate.
I guess you cannot talk about standby posture either. When I say “standby posture”, I mean that between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., the Cormorants in Gander have to be able to take off within 30 minutes, but outside those hours, there is a 2-hour period. I think that’s completely unacceptable, especially since only 17% of incidents take place between 8 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and that’s when the response time is the fastest, yet 80% of incidents occur outside those hours.
Are you free to talk about the standby posture?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Institute for Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada
We have commented on the constraints in the report. We mentioned the operating bases, the posture, the 15-hour crew duty time.
We have demonstrated that all these constraints have an impact on the aircraft range and speed. Therefore, they require further analysis, including the use of Canadian Forces personnel exclusively, which was the constraint of the SOR.
We felt that these constraints had a significant impact on the available solutions, and therefore our conclusion was that they need to be given further consideration. However, because these are related to policy and not so much to technical choices, we did not comment further on them.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Okay. You are confirming that there is currently a problem with the flight engineers. There won’t be enough engineers in a year.
You haven’t put a lot of emphasis on the training or make-up of the plane or helicopter crew. Once again, that’s because the topic is not in your mandate. Is that correct?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Institute for Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada
Yes, that is correct.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Is the private sector option also excluded from your mandate? For example, if there are no flight engineers, couldn't civilian engineers be hired?
The topic of the origin of the workforce—whether it should be made up of the military only or whether it can include civilians—has also been excluded from your mandate. Isn’t that right?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Institute for Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada
In our report we concluded that consideration should be given to the use of non-CF personnel, because this would open available solutions and the industry could offer a broader range of solutions for the Canadian search and rescue.
We didn't go any further than that. However, we pointed out that the helicopter wing of search and rescue allows that. There are crews under contract to Public Works, and we felt there was an inconsistency in the requirement calling for the use of only Canadian Forces personnel.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
